Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider
registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

During World War 2 both sides committed war crimes and atrocities. The propaganda that the Allies were the "good guys" and the Axis were the "bad guys" belongs in a comic book. Everything is not so black and white. The new documentary Hellstorm shows the crimes of the victors - saturation bombing designed to level German cities and kill the maximum number of civilians, mass rape, the largest ethnic cleansing in European history when over 10 million Germans were forcibly expelled from eastern Europe, looting of artwork and monuments etc - www.hellstormdocumentary.com

During World War 2 both sides committed war crimes and atrocities. The propaganda that the Allies were the "good guys" and the Axis were the "bad guys" belongs in a comic book. Everything is not so black and white. The new documentary Hellstorm shows the crimes of the victors - saturation bombing designed to level German cities and kill the maximum number of civilians, mass rape, the largest ethnic cleansing in European history when over 10 million Germans were forcibly expelled from eastern Europe, looting of artwork and monuments etc - www.hellstormdocumentary.com

Ummmm, ...

Have you just found out that war is not moral?

Maybe that is news to you, but I can assure you that I (and many, many, many other people) have known for quite some time that war is not moral.

__________________08 JAN 2018 > Trump says that he is "Like, Really Smart" and that he is "a Very Stable Genius".
11 JAN 2018 > During an Oval Office meeting, Trump asks "“Why are we having all these people from ****hole countries come here?”"

There's a reasonable debate to be had about the legitimacy of the Allied bombing campaign(s), but it won't be had in this thread.

Much of the rest can be laid pretty squarely at the feet of Stalin's Soviet Union. Who were never really "the good guys", even if they got lumped in with the rest of the Allies due to the vicissitudes of historical necessity.

During World War 2 both sides committed war crimes and atrocities. The propaganda that the Allies were the "good guys" and the Axis were the "bad guys" belongs in a comic book. Everything is not so black and white. The new documentary Hellstorm shows the crimes of the victors - saturation bombing designed to level German cities and kill the maximum number of civilians, mass rape, the largest ethnic cleansing in European history when over 10 million Germans were forcibly expelled from eastern Europe, looting of artwork and monuments etc - www.hellstormdocumentary.com

Nonsense. This is from your link.

I’m going to assume that most, if not all, the people reading this know that the Holocaust is a made up Jewish lie, but let’s suspend reality for a moment and say that it actually did happen as they claim. Although that would have been horrific, it would still be nothing compared to what the Germans suffered after the war.

Saturation bombing was sort of a necessity of the technology. Bombs just couldn't be aimed well enough to just drop a couple. Nations had to blanket the area and hope something hit the military target.

As to whether our choice of targets was completely aimed at the military, it was not. Civilian factories believed to be aiding the war effort were considered valid targets. I'm sure some lines were crossed. Dresden was definitely oversaturated. And I think we nuked a hundred thousand Japanese civilians.

Hey, Crossbow, Prestige, Loss Leader! First take a look at what is in the posts you are disagreeing with. No need to attempt to justify carpet boming in the face of anyone who states that the Holocaust is a fraud, but even if true, the Germans suffered worse at Allied hands. Do you even want to argue this point?

Hey, Crossbow, Prestige, Loss Leader! First take a look at what is in the posts you are disagreeing with. No need to attempt to justify carpet boming in the face of anyone who states that the Holocaust is a fraud, but even if true, the Germans suffered worse at Allied hands. Do you even want to argue this point?

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

__________________OECD healthcare spending
Expenditure on healthcarehttp://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/health-data.htm
link is 2015 data (2013 Data below):
UK 8.5% of GDP of which 83.3% is public expenditure - 7.1% of GDP is public spending
US 16.4% of GDP of which 48.2% is public expenditure - 7.9% of GDP is public spending

... saturation bombing designed to level German cities and kill the maximum number of civilians ...

You asserting the above does not make it fact. Rather, it just makes readily apparent your lack of knowledge on the subject.

__________________"We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things not because they are easy, but because they are hard. Because that goal will serve
to organize and measure the best of our abilities and skills, because that challenge is one we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and
one which we intend to win."

My favorite WWII crime is when the retreating Germans on the eastern front left all the alcohol untouched in the hope that Russian soldiers would drink it and get too drunk to continue pressing the advance. This misfired badly as the Russians drank and still kept coming, so uninhibited that they stopped caring whether the killed military or civilians, and leading to so many rapes that the numbers defy logic.

Hey, Crossbow, Prestige, Loss Leader! First take a look at what is in the posts you are disagreeing with. No need to attempt to justify carpet boming in the face of anyone who states that the Holocaust is a fraud, but even if true, the Germans suffered worse at Allied hands. Do you even want to argue this point?

Mondial is known to me.

I do kinda want to argue the point that the horrors visited upon the Germans by the Russians should be collectively attributed to all the Allies. In his effort to rehabilitate the Nazis, Mondial take the position that the Allies behaved no better. But when you look at the record, in fact it was mainly Russia that behaved no better. What happened in Eastern Europe was not the fault of the US or the UK. There's reason that Germans kept trying to escape to West Germany, not from West Germany.

If Mondial's argument were that the Soviets were no better than the Nazis, and that it's a shame they didn't get the same treatment, I would agree. I just don't agree with the argument that therefore the British and the Americans were no better than the Nazis.

But when you look at the record, in fact it was mainly Russia that behaved no better. What happened in Eastern Europe was not the fault of the US or the UK. There's reason that Germans kept trying to escape to West Germany, not from West Germany.

I think perhaps some of that can be attributed to 'you reap what you sow'. That is, if your enemy fights in a merciless way, you'll tend to fight that way in response. The Germans were certainly willing to fight the Russians with little quarter given, so it ought not to be too surprising if the Russians responded by fighting back and giving little quarter in reply.

__________________"We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things not because they are easy, but because they are hard. Because that goal will serve
to organize and measure the best of our abilities and skills, because that challenge is one we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and
one which we intend to win."

During World War 2 both sides committed war crimes and atrocities. The propaganda that the Allies were the "good guys" and the Axis were the "bad guys" belongs in a comic book. Everything is not so black and white. The new documentary Hellstorm shows the crimes of the victors - saturation bombing designed to level German cities and kill the maximum number of civilians, mass rape, the largest ethnic cleansing in European history when over 10 million Germans were forcibly expelled from eastern Europe, looting of artwork and monuments etc - www.hellstormdocumentary.com

Couple of holocaust deniers made a whiny movie about how their Nazi heroes got curb stomped? Yeah, there is a line from Archer that I should share here.

__________________"Created by the Legislature in 1927, the State Bar is an arm of the California Supreme Court, protecting the public by licensing and regulating attorneys."

Mitchell and Webb for those who haven't seen their take on the ethics of WW2:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

If Mondial's argument were that the Soviets were no better than the Nazis, and that it's a shame they didn't get the same treatment, I would agree. I just don't agree with the argument that therefore the British and the Americans were no better than the Nazis.

I'm not sure that the best case against America even lies in the European theater. It was in the pacific where we did our morally worst. Of course, Japan wasn't slouching when it came to war crimes, either.

I'm not sure that the best case against America even lies in the European theater. It was in the pacific where we did our morally worst. Of course, Japan wasn't slouching when it came to war crimes, either.

I tried watching this documentary. I even started a thread on it. It is pretty laughable seeing as how its premise is that Germany was just standing around whistling when all the thugs teamed up on it.

__________________

"Because WE ARE IGNORANT OF 911 FACTS, WE DEMAND PROOF" -- Douglas Herman on Rense.com

During World War 2 both sides committed war crimes and atrocities. The propaganda that the Allies were the "good guys" and the Axis were the "bad guys" belongs in a comic book. Everything is not so black and white. The new documentary Hellstorm shows the crimes of the victors - saturation bombing designed to level German cities and kill the maximum number of civilians, mass rape, the largest ethnic cleansing in European history when over 10 million Germans were forcibly expelled from eastern Europe, looting of artwork and monuments etc - www.hellstormdocumentary.com

I haven't watched the documentary, but, did you have a point?

Sometimes these things get into a bunch of "who was worse" debates, but can you even compare that sort of thing? I mean, who was worse? Adolf Hitler, Winston Churchill, Jodi Arias? All were responsible for killing of innocent people, so how exactly do we figure out who was worse?

I think motive plays a role in a lot of people's assessment of guilt in such situations. Adolf Hitler was trying to conquer territory and enslave or kill the current inhabitants, eventually freeing that land to become German Lebensraum. It doesn't seem too noble. Churchill was trying to overthrow the guy who was trying to enslave the Poles and exterminate the Jews, and to do so with the smallest possible number of deaths of his own people, even if that meant killing people whose only crime was supporting the German military, or living next to a lot of people who did. It doesn't make Dresden into a humanitarian act, but somehow it seems less despicable than building an extermination camp.

The point appears to be holocaust denial and pro Nazi publicity. A sympathetic viewer of the film writes

... As well done as the film is, it is certainly not for the faint-hearted, but nonetheless it is still imperative for every person of European descent to see this for it gives us a glimpse of what could happen if the Jews have their way and do successfully implement their New World Order.

The "point" is Hitler's point. This is antisemitic Nazi propaganda. It has nothing to do with the iniquities of Allied area bombing or Soviet misdeeds on German soil. It is about "persons of European descent" averting the supposed "Jewish" New World Order.

I think perhaps some of that can be attributed to 'you reap what you sow'. That is, if your enemy fights in a merciless way, you'll tend to fight that way in response. The Germans were certainly willing to fight the Russians with little quarter given, so it ought not to be too surprising if the Russians responded by fighting back and giving little quarter in reply.

Most defintitely. There is nothing comparable to the "Commissar Order" for the forces fighting the Western powers, and the deliberate mistreatment of Soviet PWs from Barbarossa on did nothing but create hatred for the Germans by the Soviets. Combine this with the "tit for tat" way the Soviets then waged war against the Germans and their Allies, its hard to see how the behaviour of all the armies in the East could have been anything but bad.

If Holocaust denial appears, how far behind are the claims such as Himmler was a harmless librarian and Hitler was a vegetarian dog-fancier, and the Wermacht was really on a humanitarian mission to liberate Europe and Russia from great fleets of rogue killer rabbis.

__________________...our governments are just trying to protect us from terror. In the same way that someone banging a hornets’ nest with a stick is trying to protect us from hornets. Frankie Boyle, Guardian, July 2015

I was just wondering if Mondial would weigh in, or is he a "post and run" sort?

I mean, the OP says that bad things were done by both sides in the war. Of course that's true. When the entire force of the industrial world is applied to killing each other, some pretty awful stuff is going to happen.

If Holocaust denial appears, how far behind are the claims such as Himmler was a harmless librarian and Hitler was a vegetarian dog-fancier, and the Wermacht was really on a humanitarian mission to liberate Europe and Russia from great fleets of rogue killer rabbis.

No. No. No. You are so wrong -- Hitler was a cat-fancier!

__________________"Reality is what's left when you cease to believe." Philip K. Dick

As a non-history guy, I will say that my impressions of why WW2 Germany is evil is not because of their war tactics or actions, but because of the Holocaust. Notice that Japan doesn't get the same stigma as Germany from WW2, despite the fact that they were ruthless warriors as well.

I can understand and even overlook a lot of what happens in war, and will judge it through those eyes. But the Holocaust is a wholenother level of evil.

Of course, if the goal is Holocaust denial, then you try to create a false equivalency.

__________________I have a permanent room at the Home for the Chronically Groovy - Floyd from the Muppets

When people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together.

__________________"You can find that book everywhere and the risk is that many people who read it believe that those fairy tales are real. I think I have the responsibility to clear things up to unmask the cheap lies contained in books like that."
- Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone

I was just wondering if Mondial would weigh in, or is he a "post and run" sort?

I mean, the OP says that bad things were done by both sides in the war. Of course that's true. When the entire force of the industrial world is applied to killing each other, some pretty awful stuff is going to happen.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

Mitchell and Webb for those who haven't seen their take on the ethics of WW2:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

{yt}ToKcmnrE5oY{/yt} but with square brackets i.e. just the bit after the youtube domain address...

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

__________________OECD healthcare spending
Expenditure on healthcarehttp://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/health-data.htm
link is 2015 data (2013 Data below):
UK 8.5% of GDP of which 83.3% is public expenditure - 7.1% of GDP is public spending
US 16.4% of GDP of which 48.2% is public expenditure - 7.9% of GDP is public spending

As a non-history guy, I will say that my impressions of why WW2 Germany is evil is not because of their war tactics or actions, but because of the Holocaust. Notice that Japan doesn't get the same stigma as Germany from WW2, despite the fact that they were ruthless warriors as well.

I can understand and even overlook a lot of what happens in war, and will judge it through those eyes. But the Holocaust is a wholenother level of evil.

Of course, if the goal is Holocaust denial, then you try to create a false equivalency.

I would say that Imperial Japan was pretty much as bad as NAZI Germany,

At the time of the dropping of the Atom Bombs, the Japanese Empire was killing about 200,000 civilians a month (mostly in China).

I also wonder what the two regimes thought would happen if they had won. You can't have both Germans and Japanese being racially superior to each other. They both had a racist philosophy.

__________________OECD healthcare spending
Expenditure on healthcarehttp://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/health-data.htm
link is 2015 data (2013 Data below):
UK 8.5% of GDP of which 83.3% is public expenditure - 7.1% of GDP is public spending
US 16.4% of GDP of which 48.2% is public expenditure - 7.9% of GDP is public spending

As a non-history guy, I will say that my impressions of why WW2 Germany is evil is not because of their war tactics or actions, but because of the Holocaust. Notice that Japan doesn't get the same stigma as Germany from WW2, despite the fact that they were ruthless warriors as well.

I can understand and even overlook a lot of what happens in war, and will judge it through those eyes. But the Holocaust is a wholenother level of evil.

Of course, if the goal is Holocaust denial, then you try to create a false equivalency.

Eh, Hitler and his cronies single-handedly started an infinitely destructive war that killed over fifty million people. Awareness of the Holocaust grew gradually during and after the war, and of coursed moved the Nazis into another dimension of evil. But even without it Hitler would still have been a Timur Lang or Dschingis Khan - a ruthless warmongering monster.

__________________"The president’s voracious sexual appetite is the elephant that the president rides around on each and every day while pretending that it doesn’t exist." - Bill O'Reilly et al., Killing Kennedy

During World War 2 both sides committed war crimes and atrocities. The propaganda that the Allies were the "good guys" and the Axis were the "bad guys" belongs in a comic book. Everything is not so black and white. The new documentary Hellstorm shows the crimes of the victors - saturation bombing designed to level German cities and kill the maximum number of civilians, mass rape, the largest ethnic cleansing in European history when over 10 million Germans were forcibly expelled from eastern Europe, looting of artwork and monuments etc - www.hellstormdocumentary.com

The democratic Allies were the good guys. They ended up on the same team as one of the bad guys when the alliance between the two main bad guys broke down and they went to war.

During the war all sides behaved despicably at times, some more than others.
I have no problem when a good guy fights dirty against a dirty opposition. As has been said, you reap what you sow.

I think perhaps some of that can be attributed to 'you reap what you sow'. That is, if your enemy fights in a merciless way, you'll tend to fight that way in response. The Germans were certainly willing to fight the Russians with little quarter given, so it ought not to be too surprising if the Russians responded by fighting back and giving little quarter in reply.

I'm not entirely sure that that can be used to excuse the USSR. The fact is, the Red Army behaved quite badly long before the German invasion. The Baltic countries, Bessarabia, Poland, etc, happend long before Barbarossa. The Katyn massacre for example happened in March 1940, while the USSR was ALLIED with Germany, so it wasn't in response to anyone fighting mercilessly against the USSR.

They had also used mustard gas in their 1934 invasion of Xinjang, some 9 years after they were banned at the Geneva Protocol in 1925. (Although technically it only entered into force in 1928, so, eh, only 6 years after that.)

And even after 1941, a lot of the repression was directed at people in Soviet-controlled territory, who weren't fighting against the USSR at all. E.g., Estonia was more depopulated than the Nazis managed to do in Poland, just because it became apparent that the USSR can't hold it after Barbarossa. So, you know, let's kill and deport as many as possible before the Germans take over.

But it wasn't just Estonia. A big problem were the "destruction battallions" which implemented a rather... unique version of scorched earth policy, by also murdering civilians who resisted relocation.

Brutal repression also was quite routinely singling out ethnic groups like Tartars, Chechens, etc, just because Stalin thought they might end up cooperating with the Germans. Mind you, not because they actually did any fighting against the USSR, much less merciless fighting, but just because they MIGHT.

Etc.

So, yeah, the USSR was bad. Mind you, I'm not saying that the USA or UK necessarily share the blame. Just that what the USSR did can't be justified by just having an enemy that fights mercilessly. They were quite merciless before having any such enemy. Is all I'm saying.

I'm not entirely sure that that can be used to excuse the USSR. The fact is, the Red Army behaved quite badly long before the German invasion. The Baltic countries, Bessarabia, Poland, etc, happend long before Barbarossa. The Katyn massacre for example happened in March 1940, while the USSR was ALLIED with Germany, so it wasn't in response to anyone fighting mercilessly against the USSR.

They had also used mustard gas in their 1934 invasion of Xinjang, some 9 years after they were banned at the Geneva Protocol in 1925. (Although technically it only entered into force in 1928, so, eh, only 6 years after that.)

And even after 1941, a lot of the repression was directed at people in Soviet-controlled territory, who weren't fighting against the USSR at all. E.g., Estonia was more depopulated than the Nazis managed to do in Poland, just because it became apparent that the USSR can't hold it after Barbarossa. So, you know, let's kill and deport as many as possible before the Germans take over.

But it wasn't just Estonia. A big problem were the "destruction battallions" which implemented a rather... unique version of scorched earth policy, by also murdering civilians who resisted relocation.

Brutal repression also was quite routinely singling out ethnic groups like Tartars, Chechens, etc, just because Stalin thought they might end up cooperating with the Germans. Mind you, not because they actually did any fighting against the USSR, much less merciless fighting, but just because they MIGHT.

Etc.

So, yeah, the USSR was bad. Mind you, I'm not saying that the USA or UK necessarily share the blame. Just that what the USSR did can't be justified by just having an enemy that fights mercilessly. They were quite merciless before having any such enemy. Is all I'm saying.

I've never heard of this. Do you have a source for further reading? I believe you, but I take a particular interest in bio-chem warfare and when a case I'm unaware of comes up, I want to know more.

__________________"There's vastly more truth to be found in rocks than in holy books. Rocks are far superior, in fact, because you can DEMONSTRATE the truth found in rocks. Plus, they're pretty. Holy books are just heavy." - Dinwar

Also note that although the mustard gas attacks were targeted at combatants (mind you, still illegal under the Geneva Protocol of 1925), in both cases they caused quite a few civilian casualties too with it.

Most defintitely. There is nothing comparable to the "Commissar Order" for the forces fighting the Western powers, and the deliberate mistreatment of Soviet PWs from Barbarossa on did nothing but create hatred for the Germans by the Soviets. Combine this with the "tit for tat" way the Soviets then waged war against the Germans and their Allies, its hard to see how the behaviour of all the armies in the East could have been anything but bad.

One can find similar things happening on a smaller scale on other fronts.

For example, there's a story from the battle for Ortona in 1943. The Germans lured a group of Canadian soldiers into a building, which the Germans then blew up. The Canadians regarded that as something of a dirty trick, so a few days later Canadian troops did the same thing to some Germans.

Then there's the Pacific, with U.S. troops versus the Japanese. The latter would sometimes feign surrender, only to drop concealed grenades as American soldiers got close. After a few such events, it should not be surprising that U.S. troops became decidedly less interested in accepting the apparent surrender of Japanese soldiers.

Originally Posted by HansMustermann

I'm not entirely sure that that can be used to excuse the USSR.

I don't offer it as excuse but rather as partial explanation. See the tit-for-tat examples given in the reply above.

__________________"We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things not because they are easy, but because they are hard. Because that goal will serve
to organize and measure the best of our abilities and skills, because that challenge is one we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and
one which we intend to win."

For example, there's a story from the battle for Ortona in 1943. The Germans lured a group of Canadian soldiers into a building, which the Germans then blew up. The Canadians regarded that as something of a dirty trick, so a few days later Canadian troops did the same thing to some Germans.

I'm having a hard time understanding how a well-conceived and well-implemented ambush could be seen as a "dirty trick" in warfare. Falling back to draw an over-eager enemy into a position of weakness is a time-honored strategem, not a war crime. Do you have a cite for the Canadian's butt-hurtedness?

Quote:

Then there's the Pacific, with U.S. troops versus the Japanese. The latter would sometimes feign surrender, only to drop concealed grenades as American soldiers got close. After a few such events, it should not be surprising that U.S. troops became decidedly less interested in accepting the apparent surrender of Japanese soldiers.

I don't see the problem here, either. Abusing the conventions of warfare earns the reprisals it receives. Belligerents who use surrender as a ploy lose the privilege of surrender. Just as belligerents who use ambulances as troop carriers lose the privilege of protected medical transport.

Quote:

I don't offer it as excuse but rather as partial explanation. See the tit-for-tat examples given in the reply above.

There's a difference between raping because the other side rapes, and fighting the enemy on the terms they have set. If the enemy sets terms that include make the process of surrender a battlefield, then their opponent must necessarily fight them on that battlefield. There's no sin in deciding to do so. The enemy bears all the blame for making it have to be that way.

I'm having a hard time understanding how a well-conceived and well-implemented ambush could be seen as a "dirty trick" in warfare. Falling back to draw an over-eager enemy into a position of weakness is a time-honored strategem, not a war crime.

Ortona was a house-to-house battle. So blowing up a building just to kill a few soldiers, it seems, wasn't viewed as a 'fair' fight. 'Fair' was to fight to clear each building (which the Germans were quite prepared to defend).

Originally Posted by theprestige

I don't see the problem here, either. Abusing the conventions of warfare earns the reprisals it receives. Belligerents who use surrender as a ploy lose the privilege of surrender. Just as belligerents who use ambulances as troop carriers lose the privilege of protected medical transport.

Didn't say it was a 'problem'. It's merely an example of one side tending to fight like the other side does. If one side gives no quarter, the other side soon won't give much quarter either.

__________________"We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things not because they are easy, but because they are hard. Because that goal will serve
to organize and measure the best of our abilities and skills, because that challenge is one we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and
one which we intend to win."

Also, just to make one thing clear about the 'explanation' of Soviet behaviour.

The Soviets raped their way through Poland, and freely looted and destroyed civilian property, when they were supposedly liberating it from Germans. The Poles hadn't fought against the USSR, so it's hard to see any rational explanation for how that campaign of terror would count as retaliation or tit for tat.

But there's something even more horrifying and telling. Out of all belligerent nations, the USSR used by far the most female soldiers in WW2. And some were captured by the Germans. A lot were executed or horribly mistreated by the Germans, but those liberated from prisoner camps by the advancing Soviet troops... were gang raped first by their Soviet male comrades.

I mean, it boggles the mind. It wasn't punishing a brutal enemy, but raping Soviet volunteers who had fought quite valliantly on the Soviet side. So, you know, WTH?

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.